The problem with these WMA look-a-likes is that not one of them has the necessary branding. They spring up each day and the more that come up, the less visibility each individual WMA shop gets. Who'd want to compete in a saturated market which, so far, has proven to be a break-even proposition at best?
People complain about Apple not supporting WMA; however, the logic of doing so is non-existent for them. WMA's a bit player in the market today. People download songs, illegally, in MP3. WMA stores pretend they're selling MP3. It's the de facto standard for audio compression. In the legal sphere, all WMA stores combined haven't held a candle to iTMS.
Yet people still think it'll work? It makes absolutely no sense. If I were someone going to sell music, I'd work at encouraging the other players to support AAC. WMA's a sick horse that needs to be shot in the head, nine times. AAC is a non-proprietary format and it's the logical evolution from where MP3 left off.
I really doubt these companies are bristling with idiots. Microsoft must be paying quite a bit to get them to go along with this. That's my only guess as to why WMA's the tried-and-failed format for these clone stores.
I also rather enjoy just exploring new areas. The world in WoW is huge and beautiful. It would literally take days of play time to see everything, even if there were no enemies to slow you down.
That's the aspect that'd appeal to me. I really wish Uru had taken off, with less of a social aspect, and more of an exploration one. The idea of an Infinite Myst type game will take off at some point, and I think it's going to dominate the industry.
However, this is offtopic and I'll probably be modded down.
This coming from someone who never was much into MMORPGs, what sets Everquest apart and makes it so crack-like? Any time I've ever given a hand at the genre (or the hack and slash variant) it just seems to get redundant very quickly and sure there's better items and abilities, but it's more of the same.
As for the modeling campaign . . . seems tacky. If I wanted to market a game, sex appeal works, yeah - but I'd rather market it on technical merits. I suppose EQ is more of a general population game, though. So, you use the most basic of methods.
Image editing. http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/ Midi sequencing/Audio Editing. http://developer.apple.com/audio/coreaudio.html and http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/ World of WarCraft. http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2004/11/worl do fwarcraft/
None of these are even feasible under any unix-like environment let alone faster. http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
Granted, it's not Linux or open-source (well, there's Darwin, but anyways. ..) here's an example of a "Unix-like environment" that wins on all the fronts you bring to the table.
A few points of clarification. I hope these help.
on
Linux Can't Kill Windows
·
· Score: 2, Informative
1) This can be solved by holding down the Command Key and M. It's OS X's standard stroke for minimizing. 2) Not sure what you mean by this. Command-Tab shifts apps and Command-` shifts windows. Albeit, the later is more obscure, but it is used consistently. Therefore, on OS X, it is standardized. In addition, you can use Expose to that purpose as well. 3) Sure you can. Open up System Preferences, Keyboard and Mouse, Keyboard Shortcuts Tab and check "Turn on Full Keyboard Access". 4) You can. Just click the arrow to the left of the save dialog. You'll see your hierarchy. It's sort of like "simple" save vs. "advanced" save. 5) Au contraire. In the Finder (first off, set the thing to Column view, if you're really into efficient directory browsing) you can Command Click the window title to see the directory tree leading to your current location. In addition, there's the "back" button, which is more a list of previous directory locations browsed, but if you tunneled in to get to where you are, it'd work as you want. In addition, you can drag any directory from the Finder onto the save dialog and have it instantly jump to that location. 6) There is. It's called "TinkerTool" and it's a free download. However, this one's a valid point. The option should be included as part of the Finder's preferences. 7) Since 1984, the Mac's used Command-C for copy, Command-V for Paste and Command - X for cut. I'd say that's pretty consistent. Apple's really been strict about functional consistency and I think if an app is built against Cocoa, the copy-paste functionality is included by the library, functioning as described. You'd have to name the manners in which you see it as inconsistent, since it's never been a problem for me.
Re:Why has corporate America avoided Macs?
on
Hacking Mac OS X
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I was going to mod you down for this bit "Mac designers were so proud of multitasking that windows didn't maximize automatically -- hardly making efficient use of screen real-estate. (See! There are multiple apps running behind this window!)." but decided the post had some worthwhile things overall.
I suppose it's a usage debate, really, but it always made sense to NOT maximize Windows in the MS-OS's way. It's disgustingly wasteful. With higher res displays, one should not be asking for a wider view of a single window, but how one can use that space for multiple windows. That's efficient multi-tasking, in my opinion. Not having one giant square blocking everything else from view.
Virtue: A Mac OS X virtual desktop pager. Works pretty nicely for me. Disable the window activation in the Expose pref pane, as mentioned by the above commentators. Boom. Best of both worlds.
Re:Another one from the "Duh!" file
on
Microsoft in 2008
·
· Score: 1
It was more for publicity than anything else. The 150 M dollar investment was in non-voting shares, if I recall, and turned a rather hefty profit for MSFT when they were sold. So, they made a profit and still have a southside R&D. Apple, on the other hand, ended up with continued MS Office development. Don't really get why standard formats are so feared in corporate offices, but apparently that lock-in's a nice card for MSFT.
Lack of freedom aura? They've succeeded. Apple is an active citizen in open source development. Darwin, KHTML, Open Source Streaming Server. And, well, there is the Linux on iPod project for hacking the firmware. Not sure how it's coming along or if it'll be ported to the iPod Shuffle . . . but that's a step in the direction you're hoping for.
"Microsoft, Apple, and other vendors need to figure out how to create software platforms that allow good integration between applications that weren't developed by a single team."
Hrm. I'd think OS X's Services Menu fulfills that.
"Services are things that one app can do for another, and they are available to every app, through the Services menu. So, for instance, I can select a phone number in an e-mail that someone has sent to me, and click "Dial Phone" (under "SBook"), rather than have to locate the SBook app, launch it, paste the phone number into the dialing window, and click "dial." Another thing I can do is position my cursor in a document where I want a screen cap to appear, and then click one menu item, and my screen capture software (Grab) will launch, take a capture of the screen, window, or selection, and place it in my document. I never have to leave my word processor, and this was all set up for me when I installed OS X -- no brain activity on my part was required. Services are a great time-saver, every Mac OS X (Coca) app has them." - Modified from Intro to NeXSTEP
This is not a troll, although it may at first seem like that is my intention.
The biggest barrier to entry for Apple's products has been cost. It's clearly stated in the article as well. There is no way to get around this fact. If you buy a Mac, you pay a premium. And you can argue all you want about how that premium buys you a more reliable and integrated system, but the fact is when 3,500 dollars buys you less than what the competition is hocking, many people are going to be turned off.
And I find three ways this could go. One, Apple tanks. With the company gone under, I can only hope that they'd fully release OS X to the open source community. Eventually, I'd hypothesize that an Intel clone would be made. With this hypothetical clone, the hardware barrier to entry would be nil. Assuming, of course, emulating Classic could be done at a decent speed. If I recall, OS X itself is highly portable - as were its NeXT predecessors.
Next solution. Apple designs a tight, Intel box. Or AMD. They use a custom design, but it is an Apple branded machine with Intel inside. This is believed to be a route Apple would never go. But, I'm all for it - if it could be done. There needs to be a vendor who can sell chips to Apple at a low enough price that Apple can reduce their own margins. Heck, sell at a loss even - and play the Microsoft.
Also, the Mac does need to be pumped as a gaming platform. This isn't as hard as it seems. Hardware wise, currently, no. But for the casual gamer to mid-performance gamer, Apple could easily sway the mindset. It just needs to put some high profile ads out like has been done for the iPod. I'm sure the iMac could fulfill the mid-range gamer's needs and it's a sleek design to boot.
Now, the third solution - games. With the release of the PS III, X-Box II, and Gamecube all on the PowerPC chipset - the market for these will become so huge that Apple's prices, by scale of economics, will drop. In which case, the barrier is removed.
You can maximize windows. Shift + Maximize button. Anyhow, it's not neccessary on Macs. I've noticed that I end up having 10 windows on the screen at the same time, on one desktop and am far more productive working in a logical manner. What's the point of having a High-Res monitor if you STILL only have one window on it? That always puzzled me. The higher the res, the more you can DO with that space. Not just more of the same . . .
I seem to think that Orson Scott Card described games as tools of military training quite well in "Ender's Game". Would it not be possible to, without the gamer's knowledge, conduct actual wars with this? Imagine a soldier who feels no guild because, quite simply, he doesn't know there's actual life being lost. But, if wars are conducted remotely will that finally bring an awareness to how futile they are? Personal wars, with soldiers on the battlefield have an emotional drive to them. A war conducted by remote would have such a distance from that.
This idea is said to have originated way back in Mac OS . . . 1. Well, this was before the web. But the idea was similar. The original Mac OS had no multitasking. So, the developers created something called "Desk Accessories", in assembly, to run as useful little utilities that didn't quite qualify as full-fledged apps.
I've never really understood, however, why people would want this. On Mac OS X, there's a program called Konfabulator that offers this functionality. In the end, I found it just to be mere clutter and eye candy rather than actual functionality. But, it seems, a lot of people have come to like the concept and implementation.
On the OS X front, there's Omnigraffle. It exports to a wide variety of formats, PostScript included. Also has the charting functions you'd be looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with these WMA look-a-likes is that not one of them has the necessary branding. They spring up each day and the more that come up, the less visibility each individual WMA shop gets. Who'd want to compete in a saturated market which, so far, has proven to be a break-even proposition at best?
People complain about Apple not supporting WMA; however, the logic of doing so is non-existent for them. WMA's a bit player in the market today. People download songs, illegally, in MP3. WMA stores pretend they're selling MP3. It's the de facto standard for audio compression. In the legal sphere, all WMA stores combined haven't held a candle to iTMS.
Yet people still think it'll work? It makes absolutely no sense. If I were someone going to sell music, I'd work at encouraging the other players to support AAC. WMA's a sick horse that needs to be shot in the head, nine times. AAC is a non-proprietary format and it's the logical evolution from where MP3 left off.
I really doubt these companies are bristling with idiots. Microsoft must be paying quite a bit to get them to go along with this. That's my only guess as to why WMA's the tried-and-failed format for these clone stores.
I hope this isn't redundant, but is there a guide to safely Flashing the firmware down to 1.0 (and a place to download it)?
Smeagol: No, no!
... You win. Go away! Go away.
Gollum: And a murderer!
Smeagol:
I also rather enjoy just exploring new areas. The world in WoW is huge and beautiful. It would literally take days of play time to see everything, even if there were no enemies to slow you down.
That's the aspect that'd appeal to me. I really wish Uru had taken off, with less of a social aspect, and more of an exploration one. The idea of an Infinite Myst type game will take off at some point, and I think it's going to dominate the industry.
However, this is offtopic and I'll probably be modded down.
This coming from someone who never was much into MMORPGs, what sets Everquest apart and makes it so crack-like? Any time I've ever given a hand at the genre (or the hack and slash variant) it just seems to get redundant very quickly and sure there's better items and abilities, but it's more of the same.
As for the modeling campaign . . . seems tacky. If I wanted to market a game, sex appeal works, yeah - but I'd rather market it on technical merits. I suppose EQ is more of a general population game, though. So, you use the most basic of methods.
Your sarcasm made my day.
*Toilet plays music and shoots colorful fountains of water.*
Toilet: I am honored to accept your waste.
Homer: Whoa! They're years ahead of us.
Kids, watching TV: Hey look, Dad's on TV.
*Zipper noise.*
Kids, Marge: AAAAAHAHHHAHAH!
Anyways, we still haven't caught up with the East's clearly superior lavatory technology. Until then, I say, good luck!
Image editing. l do fwarcraft/
.) here's an example of a "Unix-like environment" that wins on all the fronts you bring to the table.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/
Midi sequencing/Audio Editing.
http://developer.apple.com/audio/coreaudio.html and http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/
World of WarCraft.
http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2004/11/wor
None of these are even feasible under any unix-like environment let alone faster.
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
Granted, it's not Linux or open-source (well, there's Darwin, but anyways. .
1) This can be solved by holding down the Command Key and M. It's OS X's standard stroke for minimizing.
2) Not sure what you mean by this. Command-Tab shifts apps and Command-` shifts windows. Albeit, the later is more obscure, but it is used consistently. Therefore, on OS X, it is standardized. In addition, you can use Expose to that purpose as well.
3) Sure you can. Open up System Preferences, Keyboard and Mouse, Keyboard Shortcuts Tab and check "Turn on Full Keyboard Access".
4) You can. Just click the arrow to the left of the save dialog. You'll see your hierarchy. It's sort of like "simple" save vs. "advanced" save.
5) Au contraire. In the Finder (first off, set the thing to Column view, if you're really into efficient directory browsing) you can Command Click the window title to see the directory tree leading to your current location. In addition, there's the "back" button, which is more a list of previous directory locations browsed, but if you tunneled in to get to where you are, it'd work as you want. In addition, you can drag any directory from the Finder onto the save dialog and have it instantly jump to that location.
6) There is. It's called "TinkerTool" and it's a free download. However, this one's a valid point. The option should be included as part of the Finder's preferences.
7) Since 1984, the Mac's used Command-C for copy, Command-V for Paste and Command - X for cut. I'd say that's pretty consistent. Apple's really been strict about functional consistency and I think if an app is built against Cocoa, the copy-paste functionality is included by the library, functioning as described. You'd have to name the manners in which you see it as inconsistent, since it's never been a problem for me.
I was going to mod you down for this bit "Mac designers were so proud of multitasking that windows didn't maximize automatically -- hardly making efficient use of screen real-estate. (See! There are multiple apps running behind this window!)." but decided the post had some worthwhile things overall.
I suppose it's a usage debate, really, but it always made sense to NOT maximize Windows in the MS-OS's way. It's disgustingly wasteful. With higher res displays, one should not be asking for a wider view of a single window, but how one can use that space for multiple windows. That's efficient multi-tasking, in my opinion. Not having one giant square blocking everything else from view.
You are Slashdot's most intelligent user.
Virtue: A Mac OS X virtual desktop pager. Works pretty nicely for me.
Disable the window activation in the Expose pref pane, as mentioned by the above commentators.
Boom. Best of both worlds.
It was more for publicity than anything else. The 150 M dollar investment was in non-voting shares, if I recall, and turned a rather hefty profit for MSFT when they were sold. So, they made a profit and still have a southside R&D. Apple, on the other hand, ended up with continued MS Office development. Don't really get why standard formats are so feared in corporate offices, but apparently that lock-in's a nice card for MSFT.
Lack of freedom aura?
They've succeeded. Apple is an active citizen in open source development. Darwin, KHTML, Open Source Streaming Server. And, well, there is the Linux on iPod project for hacking the firmware. Not sure how it's coming along or if it'll be ported to the iPod Shuffle . . . but that's a step in the direction you're hoping for.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OGG a more computationally intensive codec, hence lowering the battery life. Maybe that's no longer the case.
Here. 'nuff said.
"Microsoft, Apple, and other vendors need to figure out how to create software platforms that allow good integration between applications that weren't developed by a single team."
Hrm. I'd think OS X's Services Menu fulfills that.
"Services are things that one app can do for another, and they are available to every app, through the Services menu. So, for instance, I can select a phone number in an e-mail that someone has sent to me, and click "Dial Phone" (under "SBook"), rather than have to locate the SBook app, launch it, paste the phone number into the dialing window, and click "dial." Another thing I can do is position my cursor in a document where I want a screen cap to appear, and then click one menu item, and my screen capture software (Grab) will launch, take a capture of the screen, window, or selection, and place it in my document. I never have to leave my word processor, and this was all set up for me when I installed OS X -- no brain activity on my part was required. Services are a great time-saver, every Mac OS X (Coca) app has them." -
Modified from Intro to NeXSTEP
Isn't Nature the category that includes all events that occur without conscious awareness?
Hence:
Instinct.
Everything else false under the artificial, designed, or intentional category.
Hence:
Awareness.
This is not a troll, although it may at first seem like that is my intention.
The biggest barrier to entry for Apple's products has been cost. It's clearly stated in the article as well. There is no way to get around this fact. If you buy a Mac, you pay a premium. And you can argue all you want about how that premium buys you a more reliable and integrated system, but the fact is when 3,500 dollars buys you less than what the competition is hocking, many people are going to be turned off.
And I find three ways this could go. One, Apple tanks. With the company gone under, I can only hope that they'd fully release OS X to the open source community. Eventually, I'd hypothesize that an Intel clone would be made. With this hypothetical clone, the hardware barrier to entry would be nil. Assuming, of course, emulating Classic could be done at a decent speed. If I recall, OS X itself is highly portable - as were its NeXT predecessors.
Next solution. Apple designs a tight, Intel box. Or AMD. They use a custom design, but it is an Apple branded machine with Intel inside. This is believed to be a route Apple would never go. But, I'm all for it - if it could be done. There needs to be a vendor who can sell chips to Apple at a low enough price that Apple can reduce their own margins. Heck, sell at a loss even - and play the Microsoft.
Also, the Mac does need to be pumped as a gaming platform. This isn't as hard as it seems. Hardware wise, currently, no. But for the casual gamer to mid-performance gamer, Apple could easily sway the mindset. It just needs to put some high profile ads out like has been done for the iPod. I'm sure the iMac could fulfill the mid-range gamer's needs and it's a sleek design to boot.
Now, the third solution - games. With the release of the PS III, X-Box II, and Gamecube all on the PowerPC chipset - the market for these will become so huge that Apple's prices, by scale of economics, will drop. In which case, the barrier is removed.
In all cases, though, price is the key factor.
You can maximize windows. Shift + Maximize button.
Anyhow, it's not neccessary on Macs. I've noticed that I end up having 10 windows on the screen at the same time, on one desktop and am far more productive working in a logical manner. What's the point of having a High-Res monitor if you STILL only have one window on it? That always puzzled me. The higher the res, the more you can DO with that space. Not just more of the same . . .
I seem to think that Orson Scott Card described games as tools of military training quite well in "Ender's Game". Would it not be possible to, without the gamer's knowledge, conduct actual wars with this? Imagine a soldier who feels no guild because, quite simply, he doesn't know there's actual life being lost. But, if wars are conducted remotely will that finally bring an awareness to how futile they are? Personal wars, with soldiers on the battlefield have an emotional drive to them. A war conducted by remote would have such a distance from that.
You didn't set this up for someone to argue that Buddhism fulfills perfectly this definition, did you?
a) Ridding of desire.
b) Termination of suffering of others.
c) Deals heavily in overcoming/coping fear of death and suffering.
This must have been set up.
This idea is said to have originated way back in Mac OS . . . 1. Well, this was before the web. But the idea was similar. The original Mac OS had no multitasking. So, the developers created something called "Desk Accessories", in assembly, to run as useful little utilities that didn't quite qualify as full-fledged apps.
I've never really understood, however, why people would want this. On Mac OS X, there's a program called Konfabulator that offers this functionality. In the end, I found it just to be mere clutter and eye candy rather than actual functionality. But, it seems, a lot of people have come to like the concept and implementation.
On the OS X front, there's Omnigraffle. It exports to a wide variety of formats, PostScript included.
Also has the charting functions you'd be looking for.
I'm not a huge software patent fan myself
Does this mean you'd like for it to end up, say, on sourceforge?